Jul 022013
 
 July 2, 2013  Posted by at 10:28 am Finance



Dorothea Lange Family Trip May 1937
"Migratory family traveling across the desert in search of work in cotton at Roswell, New Mexico. U.S. Route 70, Arizona"

Our roving reporter VK may have become a little less roving lately, he still keeps in touch by email from time to time and we have interesting exchanges. Put together, a series of these mails paint a nice picture of what he reads and thinks about oil production, credit supply, and the place in time and space where the twain shall (never) meet. The numbers are often as absurd as they are scary. I'll keep his words in their original telegraph style format, so it all reads a bit like a Twitter file.

 


Civilisation is just about burning dead stuff.

 


In 2011 oil, gas & coal companies spent $550 billion looking for fossil fuels. In 2012 it was $670 billion.

Crude oil production rose by 1.4 Mbpd (Million barrels per day in 2011. If we estimate that 1/3rd of $550 billion was spent on crude that's about $183 billion. So each marginal barrel of crude oil cost $358 (dollar cost of added barrel of crude in 2011 is $183 Billion/[1.4 Mbpd x 365] = $358).

Other researchers put break-even price for global output at $114 per barrel. Either way, by 2020 world is going to be a very different place.

 


The banks have had 5 years to repair their balance sheets. Fantasy accounting means no one cares what lies beneath. So those losses don't matter. Bernanke has shown a willingness to "print" on a grand scale & he can't unwind a $3.5 trillion balance sheet ever, so he might as well keep "printing". And frankly the markets are now used to the money printing meme, Rogoff & Reinhart have been discredited, so the government can now simply pile on the debt without a care.

 


Credit growth precedes GDP growth. In the 2002-2011 period world credit growth has been close to 12% per annum & GDP growth at 4% (11.7% vs 3.6% actually as per Hayman Capital Research ).

Total global debt (public & private) is about $210 trillion today. And global GDP is $65 trillion. If you project the trends forward, total global debt will be $635 trillion in a decade! Global GDP will be $96 trillion, i.e. total global Debt-to-GDP of over 650% in 10 years.

Key point, for the next decade to equal the last one: to achieve global growth someone needs to borrow $445 trillion over the next decade.

Also: if crude oil demand rises 2% per annum, in 10 years we'll need 92 Mbpd – from 75 Mbpd today-.

 


So US total debt must rise to $166 trillion by 2023 & EU total debt must rise to $195 trillion.

This must be done! Central Bankers must unleash the terror of inflation!! Wage growth, borrowing & spending. We must consume the Earth.

In the next 6 years more money must be lent out than in all the previous thousands of years of human history combined!!

This is a mathematical fact! It must happen. Bernanke wills it! And by 2033 we will need total global debt of $1900 Trillion! Long live the money printers! Moaaar!

 


Another way to state it is that it required $80 trillion in debt to bring 68.1 Mbpd of crude oil online by 2002 from since when the whole show began. And it will take another $130 trillion in debt for oil production to increase by just an extra 6.4 Mbpd or so to 74.5 Mbpd today.

 


How would you go about this? We can say that our civilisation depends on burning fossil fuels. So if 86% of global energy needs are derived from fossils, then of $130 trillion in debt (Kyle Bass's Hayman Capital), $112 trillion went towards coal, oil & gas. Of that 1/3rd went to oil, so that's $37 trillion.

Now between 2002-2011, 6.5 Mbpd came online. So extra debt per marginal barrel of oil is $37 trillion/ 6.5 Mbpd x 365 x 9 years = $1,730 dollars in additional debt per additional barrel?

Marginal debt per marginal barrel of oil is soaring!

 


Pretty silly analysis as usual (It's understandable, it's the immortality drive at play, escape from finity)

7.5 Mbpd is what the US produces. A 10% decline rate has to be offset every year. So in 5 years they'll need to find 3.8 Mbpd new oil + 3.75 Mbpd to replace declining production. So one new Saudi Arabia net export equivalent in 5 years?

 


US shale oil decline rates are crazy. 10% is being conservative. In Is Shale Oil Production from Bakken Headed for a Run with "The Red Queen"?, Rune Likvern shows that the average well in the Bakken play has a 40% yearly decline rate.

To keep production constant is going to be a monumental battle (Lewis Carroll's Red Queen runs ever faster just to stand still). The USGS issued a report recently that said all the shale oil plays in the US amount to about 22 billion barrels only. Or about 10 months of global supply. I read oil production for OPEC is down by 800,000 Bpd from this time last year. EIA has the data.

 


A comment I found at The Oil Drum: "Maria van der Hoeven, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency is actually a creationist and this Sarah Gardner, the author of "Does U.S. oil boom mean lower prices at the pump?", attended Carleton College where she received her bachelors degree in religion. So anti-intellectualism would be an understatement in this case…"

 


$233 trillion. That's what total global debt is today as per ING, 313% of global gross domestic product. And government debt is 80% of global GDP at $56 trillion.

 


Regarding this quote below from Unburnable Carbon Bubbles, oil output has been pretty stagnant. What was the total increase in overall energy output from 2011 to 2012 for fossil fuel companies? The marginal BTU must be huge! Hundreds of thousands of dollars per BTU if they're spending that much!

Stern said that far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674 billion (£441 billion) in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP, which could end up as "stranded" or valueless assets. Stern's landmark 2006 report on the economic impact of climate change – commissioned by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.

 


Fossil fuel use needs to decline by 70pc in 7 years to prevent a 2C rise per the Tyndall climate centre at Manchester University as carbon accumulates in the atmosphere for a century!!

Also 2C is global mean, didn't know that land temperatures would rise by 3-4C in such a scenario!

 


$230 trillion in global debt today (as per ING, May 20). By 2017 it'll be $374 trillion if it rises at the same rate as during the 2002 to end 2012 period. So someone needs to borrow $144 Trillion in 5 years ??

Assuming US Treasury yields rise to 5% and thus assuming the global average interest rate is 7%, total debt repayment will be $26.5 trillion roughly annually.

 


"OPEC capacity, which counts for 35% of today's global oil output, is expected to gain 1.75 Mbpd to 36.75 Mbpd in 2018, about 750,000 barrels per day less than under a 2012 forecast."

Notice they used the word CAPACITY above, not actual production. Very coy. So theoretical capacity can rise, actual production can fall.

 


The Guardian has gotten it wrong on China. Credit growth was 5.9x faster than GDP growth in Q1. 17 cents GDP gain for every dollar borrowed! They're approaching the US and Europe:

 



Essentially the bullish case rests on this: That in the next 10 years $370 Trillion in new debt will be created. This is to maintain the same rate of growth from 2002-2013. So total global debt rising to $600 trillion from $230 trillion today. Who's going to borrow $370 trillion?

 


Home Forums Oil And Credit

This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Raúl Ilargi Meijer 6 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 35 posts - 1 through 35 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8372

    Dorothea Lange Family Trip May 1937 "Migratory family traveling across the desert in search of work in cotton at Roswell, New Mexico. U.S. Route
    [See the full post at: Oil And Credit]

    #7861

    william
    Participant
    #7862

    Ken Barrows
    Participant

    Take a look at statistics put out by the State of North Dakota and you’ll find that the average output of all wells in the Bakken is about 130 barrels/day. 130 barrels! I need a religion major to tell me how that’s going to work out.

    #7863

    gurusid
    Participant

    Hi Folks,

    For those interested in giving feedback on how the site ‘looks and feels’ please go to this thread:

    TAE 3.0: What do you want to see?

    Thanks,

    L,
    Sid.

    #7866

    Jack
    Member

    I have been doing extensive research on the subject of renewable energy.
    I will tell you what I have discovered and some of you may already know this.
    In the times when they were building the pyramids they were making electricity with magnets.
    To sum it all up we can do the same now in fact a person by the name of Ed leedskalnin proved this.
    The repealing force using ether is the trick.
    However this knowledge is being suppressed.
    This will be the method as a source of energy in the future because they cant suppress this forever.
    What implication will all this have on the global economic system.

    #7867

    There was a graph there that didn’t show properly (diminishing marginal debt returns). Apologies for that. I had to leave for a few hours. Fixed now. Interesting to note that in the numbers on projected future credit needs, diminishing debt productivity is not yet included. VK sent a few links to numbers as well, will put those in.

    #7868

    p01
    Participant

    Jack post=7596 wrote:
    This will be the method as a source of energy in the future because they cant suppress this forever.
    What implication will all this have on the global economic system.

    Millions of slaves on stationary bike generators providing their masters with electricity after having worked in the fields planting seeds, and right before being sent to clean up the nuke sludge when they cannot generate enough electricity anymore?

    #7869

    Gravity
    Participant

    If a zero dollar bill as legal tender, of nominal value zero, attains positive velocity in circulation, is this inflationary? If at positive velocity, would the fractional value assigned to this bill naturally approach the real interest rate?

    If global gdp is 65 trillion, why is the money supply not also 65 trillion, wouldn’t that be precisely enough to pay for all traded goods and services? Why would an excess of credit above the global gdp value be necessary?

    “Fossil fuel use needs to decline by 70pc in 7 years to prevent a 2C rise per the Tyndall climate centre at Manchester University as carbon accumulates in the atmosphere for a century!!”

    https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/
    This warming hypothesis involving absolute predictions has been partially invalidated, there’s been no discernible atmospheric warming for over a decade despite co2 going up another 10 ppm. The far simpler science of meteorology is unable to provide accurate weather forecasts even three days out, because atmospheric interactions are too complex for modelling certainties.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf
    The above paper mentions that a recent lowering of stratospheric water vapor and increased sulfur emissions may account for the lack of warming, according to arbitrary sensitivities assigned to model these components. Instead the entire hypothetical mechanism of co2 induced warming may be unsound, but climate researchers could never attest to such ideas lest they lose their livelihoods.

    Water vapor has a higher infrared absorption, potentially a greater greenhouse gas, but no concern over fluctuating levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, since its not effectively taxable by being coupled to all activities in the human economy, and not suitable to fool people into thinking its a waste product with linear functions of catastrophe.

    Meanwhile, the sky over here was again filled with artificial cloud covering, aircraft chemtrails, this morning, as usual blocking 10%-15% of sunlight and greatly reducing photosynthesis, likely inducing an eventual temperature-independent rise in co2 that isn’t modelled. In regards to the massive clandestine weather modification programs influencing the measurements of coupled variables in climatology, all climatological models have become obsolete and yield no predictive functions. None of the relevant variables can be properly isolated, calibrating the sensitivity of feedbacks to reveal climate thresholds is merely guesswork under these conditions.

    Retreating glaciation and melting permafrost, insofar as these effects are held to be abnormal compared to other interglacial periods, may not be caused by a warming atmosphere at all, but could instead be caused entirely by ice albedo reduction due to soot, and the warming of the earth’s crust due to solar neutrino flux accelerating radiometric decay in the mantle. Warming of the earths crust can probably cause a rise in atmospheric co2 by itself.

    Most climate believers approach the anthropogenic warming hypothesis from a framework of mysticism induced by neuroleptic propaganda instead of scientific rationality and analytic discernment.
    A family member mentioned how important it is to reduce co2 output. When questioned on co2, said family member did not know what co2 is, they did not know that its an atmospheric trace gas produced as byproduct of combustion with properties of infrared absorption or part of the photosynthesis cycle. They didn’t even know that its gaseous.

    As normally well-informed people may be unquestioningly convinced of the need of reducing co2 without even knowing what co2 is, due to aforementioned climate propaganda, for most people this belief in anthropogenic warming remains fundamentally irrational and unscientific, only supported by the powerful allure of collectivist morality and constant appeals to scientific authority as moralising priesthood.

    The marginal cost of oil extraction is becoming crushingly high, that much is clear. At current efficiencies and automotive intensities, the average western economy stalls at 90-120$ per barrel.

    #7870

    Ken Barrows
    Participant

    Gravity,

    So, 97% of climatologists are unscientific? Anyway, we’ll know how the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis stands up soon enough. You do realize that you’re just looking at surface temperatures and not mentioning that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the oceans and rapidly melting the ice, right?

    #7871

    TonyPrep
    Participant

    Gravity, check the data. Surface warming has continued since 1998, though much more slowly. However, total warming has accelerated as the oceans have taken up an increasing proportion of the heat. That means more surface warming later on – there is no get out of jail free card, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) traps heat meaning the surface has to warm to get the energy equation into balance. There are other factors at play, too, none of them make nice reading.

    This lack of warming meme has been repeated so many times than the repeaters are actually beginning to believe it. Check out the facts, not the wishes.

    #7872

    UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000

    The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.

    The decade through 2010 was the warmest for both hemispheres and for land and sea, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization said today in an e-mailed report examining climate trends for the beginning of the millennium. Almost 94% of countries logged their warmest 10 years on record, it said. [..]

    The average global temperature for 2001-2010 was 14.47 degrees Celsius, according to the report. That’s 0.21 degree warmer than 1991-2000 and 0.79 degree warmer than 1881-1890. The increase was recorded even without any “major El Nino” event during the decade, the WMO said.

    Sea levels rose at 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year, almost double the 20th-century rate of 1.6 millimeters a year.

    #7873

    ted
    Participant

    Well Ken that is funny because if you take a look at todays wsj they have an article saying how much oil is flooding the market because of these plays.

    #7874

    … they have an article saying how much oil is flooding the market because of these plays.

    Well, actually, they don’t really. They suggest a lot though. The actual numbers are North American, they could largely be Canadian oil. The only thing that does say something sort of numberwise about the US is the little graph to the left, but without actual numbers. Hard to know what to make of that article.

    For those who don’t have a WSJ subscription, “Rising U.S. Oil Output Gives Policy Makers More Options” is accessible through Google News.

    #7876

    Gravity
    Participant

    @Ken Barrows
    We’ve had this discussion before,
    you mentioned previously you wanted to commit to preemptive industrial sabotage to prevent warming, causing certain damage in order to prevent possible damage. My reply contained counter arguments to dissuade climate fanaticism. You should re-read it.
    https://theautomaticearth.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=15&id=7200&Itemid=96#7234

    Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote: Gravity,
    So, 97% of climatologists are unscientific?

    Most scientifically illiterate people approach the subject irrationally and unmethodically, not knowing the process of testing hypothesis and falsification, while climatologists are often ideologically biased towards a preset conclusion, mentally formatted by years of climate indoctrination, or financially pressured into falsifying research. Remember climategate?

    As mentioned, a non-scientist family member felt that reducing co2 output was important, without knowing what co2 is. Mass media induction inculcated this belief.
    Only an irrational and mystical belief system can produce this conformity, making people believe things they cannot understand.
    This kind of unquestioning belief is dangerous when exploited.

    Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote:
    Anyway, we’ll know how the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis stands up soon enough

    Not without the possibility of falsification, we won’t.
    If unusual warming is happening, the fact of this warming may be established beyond reasonable doubt, but the cause of warming cannot be inferred from non-falsifiable assumptions.
    If instead of greenhouse effects, the earths crust was warming
    and this was creating all observed effects, including the bulk of co2 increase and warming oceans, climatologists would not soon observe this, since they remain biased towards a singular conclusion and are not measuring elsewhere.

    Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote: You do realize that you’re just looking at surface temperatures and not mentioning that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the oceans and rapidly melting the ice, right?

    If the oceans are indeed warming or ice is melting more than usual
    at this point in an interglacial flux,then something abnormal is causing this effect, but not necessarily greenhouse gasses.
    Other plausible causes for warming and co2 increase may be abnormal solar and geothermal effects. We haven’t been directly observing this planet and the external influences on it long enough to know whats abnormal in this regard.

    @tonyprep

    TonyPrep post=7601 wrote: Gravity, check the data.
    Surface warming has continued since 1998, though much more slowly.

    The fact that observed warming has not met expectations for uncertain reasons at least reveals that the modelling of temperature sensitivity is flawed or incomplete. The paper I linked to mentioned as much.

    TonyPrep post=7601 wrote:
    However, total warming has accelerated
    as the oceans have taken up an increasing proportion of the heat.

    The heat-sink effect and oceanic thermocouplings are complex, the surface area of oceans is probably warming a bit, and acidifying, yet the deep oceans may be cooling, but any surface warming of oceans is not provably anthropogenic yet.

    TonyPrep post=7601 wrote:
    This lack of warming meme has been repeated so many times than the repeaters are actually beginning to believe it. Check out the facts, not the wishes.

    Repeat an assertion often enough and people may be pressured into believing it, especially when repeated by public authorities as internalised value system, but the same goes for the anthropogenic arguments, only more strongly.
    Checking the measured facts directly is impossible for non-climate professionals, one relies on interpretation of datasets and modelling of correlated variables by specialised people. Climatologists’ livelihood depends on continuous funding based on politically sustaining the threat of climate change regardless of veracity, so they are likely unconsciously biased. But I’m not looking at big oil or big coal for unbiased sceptic arguments either.

    @ilargi
    The UN is probably the most biased and corrupt authority on climate change out there, they are intent on ideological climate indoctrination for exploiting collectivised guilt and not interested in scientific truth seeking, do you know about agenda 21?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

    Look at this map from agenda 21 ‘mandated’ land-use protocols;
    https://www.wrsc.org/attach_image/simulated-reserve-and-corridor-system-protect-biodiversity
    Not to use such ecofascist ideas as strawman, its says nothing about the truth or untruth of climate change/biosphere collapse by itself, it does indicate how far some people are willing to go to protect biodiversity, using supranational mandates beyond democratic debate to infringe on human rights.
    Agenda 21 comprises an international ecofascist agenda
    to collectivise all biospheric resources, for private exploitation, and lock up the entire global population in megacity prisons under the guise of sustainable development, to ‘save the planet’. I’ll never trust the UN on any climatewise topic again.

    Here are the usual graphs to put the term ‘highest ever recorded’ into perspective. This is an interglacial period, increasing temperature, retreating glaciation and melting permafrost at this point in the cycle may be entirely natural, since the last ice age ended only 15,000 years ago, or is still ending. The only thing that is clearly abnormal in this cycle is the abrupt increase of atmospheric co2, far beyond its usual flux.

    https://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time1.jpg

    https://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_CO2.jpg

    VK’s assertion, as informed by institutional climatology, is that co2 emissions must reduce by 70% within a decade to prevent a full 2° rise from pre-industrial levels, an increase which would likely be disruptive to ecosystems and agriculture.
    But if all previous emissions in the past 150 years of the industrial age, presumably amounting to 120ppm increase atmospheric co2 from industrial origin, from 280 to 400 ppm, have by now caused less than a single degree warming, how can the next decade of maybe 20ppm expected rise cause an additional 1° temp increase? And when is this increase supposed to happen? Runaway feedbacks are by definition non-linear and their absolute threshold parameters are not modellable from the randomly chaotic stochastic observables in a planetary atmosphere.
    Thermal inertia of the biosphere might delay observable effects of emissions to warming by 50 years or more, but then how can we be certain of direct causality if we cannot gauge the period of this inertia?

    Anthropogenic global warming is technically falsifiable, it just takes centuries of direct controlled observations to properly isolate the variables. If we were to shut down all industry and reduce direct co2 emissions by 100%, then if co2 rise and warming stops after 50 years or so, we would be more than 50% certain of incident causality. If we then restart all industry and begin emitting co2 at previous levels, and co2 rise and warming reappears, we would be 99% certain of direct anthropogenic casuality. Yet any method of ceasing all emissions to causally isolate the co2 variable from the temperature variable would be impractical on a global scale. Its still possible that temperature rise precedes co2 rise, also triggering feedback loops, and that this initial temp rise is non-anthropogenic in origin.

    On a related topic;
    https://www.tuberose.com/ChemTrails.html
    https://chemtrailalert.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/chem.nasa_.gif

    What in the world are they spraying?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

    Why in the world are they spraying?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

    Under clandestine weather modification/geoengineering,
    all predictive climate models are rendered obsolete!

    #7877

    p01
    Participant

    Science has been used as religion since it has become too complex to be independently verified.
    As an aside, science should have ended once it was discovered that its God is dead and its Heaven does not exist (that was when the Laws of Thermodynamics were discovered).

    #7878

    Gravity
    Participant

    Also, from the article;
    “Rogoff & Reinhart have been discredited, so the government can now simply pile on the debt without a care.”

    This was the paper on thresholds for debt to gdp ratio, at some point public debt becomes unsustainable and mathematically certain default ensues. As I recall the paper calculated this to be at 80% debt to gdp ratio for an average country according to historical examples.

    But its results, the identified thresholds for certain default, were only discredited because of a calculation error, some threshold below 200% debt to gdp would still cause mathematically probable default in most countries.

    #7879

    Nassim
    Participant

    20,000 years ago, sea-level was 160 metres below its current level.

    Historical sea level CHANGES

    In the past 300 years, sea-level has increased by 0.2 metres – 1/800th of the previous value. Big deal.

    The main advantage humans have over other creatures is our adaptability. Let’s make the most of it. 🙂

    #7880

    Nassim
    Participant

    This was the paper on thresholds for debt to gdp ratio, at some point public debt becomes unsustainable and mathematically certain default ensues. As I recall the paper calculated this to be at 80% debt to gdp ratio for an average country according to historical examples.

    It is well-worth remembering that Russia’s debt in 1998 – when the system collapsed and the oligarchs bought up the wealth of the country for cents on the dollar – was only 30% of GDP. It is well over 200% for Japan right now. It is amazing how high an expert can raise a house of cards.

    1998 Russian financial crisis

    I was in Moscow two weeks before the collapse and I noticed that the local shops only had frozen chickens from Arkensas (Bill Clinton’s fiefdom) and potatoes from the Netherlands. I thought that was ridiculous.

    I was staying in a World Bank apartment near the Kremlin and loaned by my brother. This same apartment had been the abode of Alexei Kosygin for many years previously. He was Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union for decades. The walls were lined with all the approved standard communist works covering the previous half-century – Breznev’s multi-volume biography and similar works of fiction.

    Alexei Kosygin

    #7881

    Ken Barrows
    Participant

    Gravity,

    Science may be politicized in the GW realm because if it’s a threat, humans have to adapt. We make our observations and decide what to do.

    So you can say it’s not science. Am I to infer that policies should not be enacted because it’s not proven 100%? If the Earth is down to 100,000 humans, you may be right that the issue isn’t falsifiable. Small comfort it would be.

    I admire your diligence in trying to convince “unscientific” people of the truth. You must be an optimist.

    #7882

    william
    Participant

    Last time I tried to mention this is was not registered and I can see some alarming things.

    First the worlds largest field the Qatar field has many wells operating at large losses to keep things looking good. Wells operate at %60 water and the percent seems to grow monthly. They aren’t viable – its just for show. This is the largest oil producing field in the world.

    Second the US treasury has been falsely printing gold certificates to push the value of gold down. Its a guess on my part but I don’t see any other way they could be pushing the price down. They admit to using tools at their disposal to adjust its price. They aren’t selling any physical gold.

    Third the price of oil is past $100. They may be testing the market. I believe they will see swift action.

    Because of these 3 things I expect to see a market crash immediately within days.

    #7883

    Nassim
    Participant

    William,

    Are you sure you don’t mean Ghawar?

    #7885

    Gravity
    Participant

    @Ken Barrows

    I’m saying predictive climatology cannot be exact science yet, too complex to model, but its akin to descriptive social science in inexactness.
    I’m not trying to convince people of any specific truth, I don’t know the truth, I’m trying to convince people that the scientific truth of this matter remains open to debate, insights provided by new research must always be allowed to change the status of ‘consensus’. Climatologists have no monopoly on scientific truth, although the institution of organised science does maintain a monopoly on the instrumentality required to measure the truth.

    Policies with 100% prob of severe damage [to economy, human rights] should never be used to thwart any threat with less than 100% prob of damage of equal magnitude, such policies cannot be justified, much less if the magnitude of prevented damage is unquantifiable or less quantifiable than the magnitude of policywise damage.

    Global population reduced to 100,000 people because of climate change? You’re overestimating the magnitude and speed of this particular existential threat. Realistically, severe climate change or biospheric collapse due to runaway warming has 0% probability of directly causing human extinction within 1000 years, even in worstcase scenario of >10° temp rise within 200 years, but it does have some high prob [close to 100%] of collapsing urban civilization in the same worstcase scenario, and this would likely reduce human population to less than a billion.
    A >10° temp rise within 200 years has <0,5% prob of materialising by anthropogenic lukewarming trends, but despite humans being exceedingly adaptive, such an extreme temp rise could cause human extinction after a period of 10,000-50,000 years of intractable and unmitigated biospheric collapse, but likely not sooner or with less severe warming.
    Other existential threats such as global thermonuclear war do have >0% prob of causing human extinction this century.

    #7888

    davefairtex
    Participant

    US Crude Oil production in barrels per day:

    Pretty clearly US crude production is doing well, and the trajectory is still going up. However, this takes a large number of wells to make it happen. I don’t have charts on the number of wells – I’ve seen them, and the sheer number of wells this takes is pretty astonishing. I recall calculating something like 100 bbl/day as the average rate per well (vs something around 1800 bbls/day per well from Prudhoe Bay – and the lifespan of that field was measured in decades), and given the brisk decline rates of the shale oil, once drilling stops, my guess is the curve won’t look like this for very long.

    #7889

    Nassim
    Participant

    Dave,

    I think you may have meant this article:

    Is Shale Oil Production from Bakken Headed for a Run with “The Red Queen”?

    Figure 04 shows that the specific average production (Bbls/day/well) had strong growth as from 2006 to 2008 and has since been sustained at around 140 Bbls/day/well. Start up of new wells shows an accelerating trend as from 2006. It is this accelerating start up of new wells that have resulted in growth in total production. Extraction/production of oil and gas from shale formations has its own distinct physics governed by geology and comprised of steep decline rates and challenging dynamics that define the rules to create overall growth, sustain a plateau and/or declines.

    #7890

    gurusid
    Participant

    Hi Folks,

    James Kunstler’s latest podcaste – KunstlerCast 235 — Talking to petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown – is well worth (pun intended!) checking out regarding the depletion rate of these ‘Fracked wells’. Its very much the Red Queen syndrome:

    The Queen: Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!

    That and the fact that the Feds threat to ‘taper’ has caused mass panic in the commodities markets, which are underperforming anyways due to a mysterious lack of demand – i.e. lack of ‘growth’ :dry: :

    Reuters:
    By Barani Krishnan
    NEW YORK | Mon Jul 1, 2013 3:34pm EDT
    “For one, the winding down of the Federal Reserve campaign to boost growth with easy money threatens to drain liquidity from the commodities market, which has been broadly seen as one of the larger beneficiaries of the policy in place since the financial crisis.

    Market fundamentals are also on shaky ground, with giant consumer China showing signs of economic cooling and the U.S. and European recovery still fragile. The supply-side dynamic has shifted from shortage to glut, with U.S. shale oil production booming and global grain inventories rebounding.”

    It will probably drain all the ‘excess’ oil from all those ‘running to stand still’ drilling ops. Dave is right on that oil supply chart – it won’t look like that for long… :ohmy:

    L,
    Sid.

    Edit: Ha! I see Nassim beat me to it – by five minutes! Kudos… 😆

    #7893

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    Ken Barrows post=7600 wrote: Gravity,

    So, 97% of climatologists are unscientific? Anyway, we’ll know how the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis stands up soon enough. You do realize that you’re just looking at surface temperatures and not mentioning that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the oceans and rapidly melting the ice, right?

    Hi Ken, can you prove they are scientific?

    Appeal to authority that can’t support its position with base data and logic is a fallacy.

    So is appeal to popularity.

    So is appeal to Goldman Sach funding. -lol-

    You do know that the biggest funders of AGW are the mega banks and they are are also the biggest the culprits? Yet, nobody blames them as the villains that they are. Why? Does the fact they have all the mega-money and only pay to get the results they want to see?

    Think about it – and read Eisenhower’s fairwell speech while that thought is in your head.

    Yes, that’s right, the credit bubble they criminally created through their control of the Federal Reserve Trojan Horse created the boom that led to the mass of CO2 put into the atmosphere.

    Reference the first two charts to see the criminal debt bubble blown by the bankster’s Federal Reserve Trojan Horse…

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3216019

    I view the system as very complex. I’m not a docrinaire either way – I don’t know how much humans impact temperature change. Nobody has shown me good evidence either way.

    I do find it a bit odd that global temperatures have flat lined as humans have dispensed more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, not a single model predicted that back in the 1990s.

    I also know they rigged the temperature gatheriing devices eliminating the ones that reported colder temperatures and keeping the warmer ones… with the obvious impact of reporting “temperature increases.”

    I also know that the agenda of the banksters is to de-industrialize the US to create a powerless nation of bond slaves – and cutting carbon emissions in the US while allowing the banksters to have unlimited carbon emissions in China while they leverage slave labor is exactly what they are doing.

    Obama was just in Africa telling the people there that they don’t get energy, homes are cars because “the planet will boil over.”

    This isn’t a simple issue – one way or the other. This is complex chit. When the models fail, as they demonstrably have in the last 10 years, though, it is time to rethink things a bit.

    Going back to the previous link…

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3216019

    Note that the third chart show main street’s organic growth contracting to the tune of $500 billion a quarter as Big Finance Capital, in part through their central bank corporate front operations, spike interest rates.

    In a game of cards, that would be known as a “tell.”

    We are on the precipice of something wicked.

    PS – they teach the importance of “source documents” in 3rd grade at Jesuit school. Jesuit 3rd graders know how to find reality better than 99 adults in 100.

    John Taylor Gatto and Jesuit School (24m and 40s in if the video starts at the beginning):

    #7894

    Ken Barrows
    Participant

    You’re certainly right in that 97% of climatologists could be wrong. I guess you could check out folks like James Hansen or Lonnie Thompson or Jennifer Francis and determine if they are rigorously scientific in their work.

    I am, of course, no more than a peon but since solicited I’ll say a few words.

    From what I have seen, there were predictions of a more rapid rise in temperatures over the past 15 years. Perhaps the climatologists will adjust their models.

    Why only focus on the surface temperature? Most of the warming has taken place in the deep oceans. Much energy is needed to melt ice. With 13 of the last 15 years in the top 15 warmest years in the record (sorry, no cite, I can be corrected), I don’t know if I am ready to say the warming has halted.

    I think it would be interesting to actually state the GW hypothesis. Is it something like this? Emission of greenhouse gases will lead to a warming earth. What does “warming earth” mean? Should the theory have some numbers behind it?

    I admit uncertainty in the theory. No problem, you adjust the theory if observations allow. Perhaps this is unscientific, but one observation is that CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest in 4-5 million years (before humans anyway) and rising 2-3 ppm per year. I don’t know if I want to test the theory that uunlimited CO2 emissions will cause no damage.

    As for megabanks and GW, I am not sold on a complex cap and trade scheme. As I should not appeal to authority (you make a good point), neither should you appeal to the big bad banks and where they put their cash.

    #7895

    Gravity
    Participant

    Gatto has excellent insights on the corporate education-ignorance complex in the book ‘The Underground History of American Education’.

    Climate science is multidisciplined and multivariate, maybe too much to be exactly predictive, although all component disciplines are exact sciences, their interface in predictive models becomes inexact and ideologically malleable because of having to assign arbitrary weight to non-isolated variables.
    There is a separate difficulty of science informing policy. The cost/benefit analysis of mitigation policies, even if informed by exact science, must involve a coherent framework of statistical ethics to delineate the common optimal good, but few politicians or technocrats have skills in statistical ethics, especially regarding policy effects spanning deep time.

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume the whole co2 rise, currently 2ppm annually, is anthropogenic and caused by some industrial output that is instantly reducible via policy.
    Then at 400ppm currently, reducing emissions by 70% from current levels, disregarding gigadeath economic damage, would cumulatively yield 470ppm atmospheric co2 by the year 2113AD instead of 600ppm, which should make some difference in temperature and agricultural stability by then.
    That’s likely the idea VK was quoting that institute on, the cumulative co2 buildup expected after a set period.

    In climate models, a relatively sudden rise in atmospheric co2 from 280 to 600ppm within a few centuries is likely to cause [or be caused by] a >2° temp rise, whereas co2 rising only to 470 ppm might still keep temp rise below 2°. Yet a 2° rise is not necessarily abnormal or destructive relative to global thermal equilibrium, this depends on whether a moderately warmer world would be a drier or a wetter world, more cloudy or less cloudy, and which positive/negative feedback normally apply in what sequence to trigger the next glaciation on schedule, and which of those feedbacks are currently misalligned.

    https://www.nature.com/news/global-temperatures-are-close-to-11-000-year-peak-1.12564
    Paleoatmospheric extrapolations modelling the distant past are altogether more trustworthy than predictive models projecting the near future.

    https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/global_temperature_co21.jpg
    This graph illustrates the regular interglacial co2 respiration and global temperature correlation, the extrapolated co2 flux is highly correlated with extrapolated temperature flux. Presumably their relation was stable for 500,000 years until recently, but only within a narrow band bounded by precise feedbacks. Negative feedbacks for the co2 component seem to have failed or been overpowered recently, also some carbon sinks have been misplaced by industrial development, but temp rise is still lagging, there are unclear and unpredictable latencies in the co2/temp relation.

    Under statistical meta-ethics, its best to make an effort to replant a billion trees annually for several centuries to hedge bets against co2 buildup, just in case temp rise is a highly correlated function of co2 rise, whether anthropogenic or not in origin. Innovative ways of limiting co2 emissions or sequestrations that don’t cause [energy] poverty or infringe human rights can be prudent policy, but privatised carbon taxation schemes, industrial sabotage or authoritarian [eco-extremist] agendas need not be applied in any scenario.

    #7896

    Mark T
    Member

    Chart of the total credit market debt in the United States versus its gdp

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=kkN

    #7897

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: You’re certainly right in that 97% of climatologists could be wrong.

    Please cite the study that yielded that number. Not an authority, but the study. Who was asked, who wasn’t asked, what question was asked… and anything else you deem relevant once you start thinking about where your data comes from.

    BTW, who provides a salary for someone who doesn’t believe in AGW based on the finance promotion and financing of the issue?

    Money was the control mechanism highlighted by Eisenhower in his farewell speech. Did you reach it?

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: I guess you could check out folks like James Hansen or Lonnie Thompson or Jennifer Francis and determine if they are rigorously scientific in their work.

    How about posting a link where they post their source data and logic that they use to reach their conclusions? It should be simple to do. If they don’t have such a link, I suggest you consider the various reasons why they wouldn’t post their data and logic.

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: I am, of course, no more than a peon but since solicited I’ll say a few words.

    Based on your response, I think you have pretty good control over your emotions and value logic and reason – so you are ahead of most, IMHO!

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: From what I have seen, there were predictions of a more rapid rise in temperatures over the past 15 years. Perhaps the climatologists will adjust their models.

    I believe 100% of those establishment certified models were wrong – and all in the same direction. That kind of miss isn’t due to random chance, there is a special cause that resulted in everyone being wrong in the same direction. Just perhaps this is because the establishment finances people who tell the establishment what they want to hear. Something to consider.

    How about making the models public? Remember, the mega banks had “quants” who claimed models showing housing could keep going up for a long time – even though incomes were flat to down… but they didn’t mention that in the articles. Of course, nobody ever saw those models – because no such rational model existed. Exponential growth can’t go on the way they claimed.

    I recall vividly that the establishment reduced the number of thermometers and some claimed that the ones removed historically reported lower temperatures. This, of course, could be used to skew the data.

    Voting to exclude the sun as a significant contributor to global climate change is not science. It is politics.

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: Why only focus on the surface temperature? Most of the warming has taken place in the deep oceans. Much energy is needed to melt ice. With 13 of the last 15 years in the top 15 warmest years in the record (sorry, no cite, I can be corrected), I don’t know if I am ready to say the warming has halted.

    What is your source data that shows the oceans are warming and by how much?

    The chart depicted in this article shows deep ocean temps cooling since about 2006 or so…

    Ocean-Heat-Content-Based Model By German Scientists Shows Continued Global Cooling Ahead

    https://notrickszone.com/2013/01/09/ocean-heat-content-based-model-by-german-scientists-shows-continued-global-cooling/

    Do you have data to contradict it? If the oceans are cooling and surface temperatures are cooling as anthropogenic CO2 emissions are higher than ever, what does that mean?

    How much of the temperature change was due to eliminating cooler temperature gauges?

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: I think it would be interesting to actually state the GW hypothesis. Is it something like this? Emission of greenhouse gases will lead to a warming earth. What does “warming earth” mean? Should the theory have some numbers behind it?

    I admit uncertainty in the theory. No problem, you adjust the theory if observations allow. Perhaps this is unscientific, but one observation is that CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest in 4-5 million years (before humans anyway) and rising 2-3 ppm per year. I don’t know if I want to test the theory that uunlimited CO2 emissions will cause no damage.

    Are you willing for humanity, including you but excepting the criminal dElites, of course, to live in dirt huts and scavage for food in order to prevent a possibility?

    Do you know the simplest way to reduce CO2? There are two things…

    1. Stop the criminal debt bubble blowing
    2. End the international war crimes of aggression. You can’t imagine how much fuel and pollution is related to these bankster wars of aggession. Neither can I. Throw in a little depleted uranium blown up all over the planet and it is simply nasty.

    I’m all for society putting eliminating criminal debt bubbles and war criminal related CO2 emissions.

    Let’s do it! But, but, but… nobody in establishment circles talks about that – apparently a sane monetary system and a peaceful society is not part of an agenda they are willing to financially support. It is YOU AND I who are the problem, not the debt money Ponzi operators and the mass murdering war mongers.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned namely mistaking systems for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
    ~”The First Global Revolution”, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991.

    Ken Barrows post=7624 wrote: As for megabanks and GW, I am not sold on a complex cap and trade scheme. As I should not appeal to authority (you make a good point), neither should you appeal to the big bad banks and where they put their cash.

    I think the fact the mega banks funnel billions into the AGW agenda when they are the main cause of CO2 emissions is relevant data that ought to be considered relevant to any discussion on AGW.

    I’m not claiming that their funding it necessarily means it is a false theory.

    I get battered from both sides… both claim their side is the truth and that there isn’t much that isn’t known.

    My view is that the system that results in temperatures across planet Earth is extremely complex and there is dramatically more to be learned than is currently known.

    IMHO, both sides are deceived.

    However, I am aware of a Big Finance Capital, the crowd that controls everything big (banks, governments, military complex, establishment institutions, etc…), agenda to gut America and I know that CO2 is tightly correlated to industrial output.

    When the bankster financed media touts the importance of CO2 reduction in America, while the mega banksters leverage dictator controlled slave labor and pollute to their heart’s desire, something is wrong – even if human activity is the main cause of temperature increases.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22841356

    BTW, I’m all for conservation and protecting the environment. Let’s tackle the big issues first – end the criminal credit bubbles (and the industrial bubbles that it creates) and end the criminal wars of aggression.

    I’m not for the banksters creating a problem, or lying about a problem, and then gutting America in order to control America in an authoritarian manner – through their financed political puppets or otherwise.

    This isn’t a simple issue – there are complexities and subtleties to it that are never vetted in the bankster financed media.

    #7898

    Ken Barrows
    Participant

    You got the last word. FWIW:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    #7899

    Nassim
    Participant

    Global Sea Ice Area (1979-present)

    How the “experts” are allowed to retrospectively modify data:

    How NIWA added lots of warming in New Zealand – and got away with it – so far

    Let’s face it, science is not a popularity contest and saying that 97% of scientist believe in whatever is not very useful – especially when their jobs are on the line.

    I really don’t know what is going on. I think the credit bubble is a far more important target for our attention.

    #7911

    draego454
    Member

    Loved the article. Just had one little nit:

    >> concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.

    How can one assess a price tag and guaranteed results from technology that doesn’t exist yet? (wind and/or solar? not with today’s level of technology)

    Steven In Dallas.

    #7938

    Gravity
    Participant

    Curiously, Texas crude oil production has doubled in the last 3 years, shale oil projects are boosting production volume with unconventional oil, but presumably at lower net energy content.

    At this [unsustainably parabolic] rate of increase, in another three years production volume would surpass the historic production peak in ’72, seemingly contrary to the traditional peak oil thesis on bell-shaped production curves operating over an area this large.
    Here are some optimistic industry perspectives on this. These projects may be subsidised in some way to make them appear more viable, detracting from net economic/energy gains, and the subsequent depletion rates should become very steep.

    https://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/the-exponential-rise-in-saudi-texas-oil-output-continues-the-states-oil-production-doubled-in-only-two-and-a-half-years/

    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfptx1&f=m

    https://peak-oil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/slide1.jpg

    https://blog.mysanantonio.com/eagle-ford-fix/2013/02/the-latest-look-at-the-texas-drilling-rig-count/

    Shale oil extraction is energy intensive and may be powered by subsidised fossil fuel use, some of these in-situ heating projects may have low EROEI, but its perhaps not as pollutive as fluid fracking.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

    #7955

    Professorlocknload
    Participant

    Very interesting article and arguments. All well presented, yet all over the board.

    Religion of science vs creationism vs futuristic speculative projection and a dash of who’s fault it all is…all in search of a hopeful glimpse of a random and unknowable future. (Hopefully the argument isn’t ‘won’ by any particular faction, or tyranny will reign.)

    Man just isn’t a good planner. He simply puts one foot in front of the other, one day at a time, tripping over, and stepping around obstacles, on, as Kristofferson put it in song “His Wandering Way Back Home.” Some days the hunter wins, others the tiger.

    In the end, the only solution will be exerted by market force, ie; natural laws of physics and nature. Sooner, if allowed to function unimpaired, much later and more severely administered, if encumbered by political force.

    Human action will accommodate, as it has no other choice.

    Until then, guess I’ll live for today and accept it all for what it is.

    I would, however, suggest getting somewhere where minimal heat and AC is required, a long growing season exists, close to marine fisheries, lots of water, woods, and lightly to moderately populated. Might make the transition a bit more tolerable in case the worst of the doom and gloom materializes. For sure, no one is coming to save us, just as it should be.

    “Been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.” Mark Twain

Viewing 35 posts - 1 through 35 (of 35 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.